Vort

Dear brother, You posted in the Advice section, so I'll give you some advice. Your trial with your ex-wife is an opportunity for you to become a true son of God. The prophet Peter taught:"For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps..." You were wronged. Endure it patiently, and that is acceptable with God. Pornography is a disturbing and soul-cankering evil. Talk to your bishop TODAY, if possible. Don't let pride stand in your way. Are you concerned about whether "the rules" say that you "have to" talk to the bishop? Or are you concerned about being in good standing with God? Because if you are viewing or have recently viewed pornography, you are not. Don't look for excuses not to go. Just go see him. Don't masturbate. That's not what sex is for. In fact, it's a misuse of sex. If you have not already stopped, you should probably talk to your bishop about this, too. In many cases, and especially with men, it's an addictive behavior that doesn't have much (if anything) to do with sex drive per se, but is a mechanism for stress relief and dealing with depression. The problem is that it doesn't actually do anything about the stressors in your life and does not heal depression.Do the right thing. Quit worrying about whether you "have to", and just rid yourself of the chains that burden you. As you do the right thing to take control of your life, God will bless you. He won't take away your problems immediately, but he will make you strong enough to bear them cheerfully, until such a time as he delivers you from them.

This directly conflicts with your previous assertion: You either hate the US government (whether or not you think the word is "strong and inappropriate") or else you do not. You stated that you did. Now you claim you do not. How do we know what to believe from you? What exactly does it mean to "raze" an accusation against someone? Do you mean that I took an accusation against you and tore it down? Because I'm pretty sure I did no such thing, at least not in this thread. Or do you perchance mean "raise"? If so, then you are wrong. My previous quotation of your own words proves that the accusation I raised (as opposed to "razed") against you was not at all empty. So "the US government or [its] citizenry" is a symptom of an unrepresentative government? Do I understand you correctly? How is the US government a "symptom" of "unrepresentative government" that you hate so badly, but somehow does not qualify as the "unrepresentative government" itself? And how is the US citizenry a "symptom" of "unrepresentative government"?

Why do you Americans like to bust this line out? Maybe because we're suckers for stating obvious truths. The only exaggeration I see is the "frothing at the mouth" part. Please demonstrate to me where that is implied in anything I wrote. Agreed. The hatred of the American people and the lies and distortions that fuel that hatred are indeed sad. No. What sense does this make? If I disagree with your contention -- that is, if I do not believe that "America is on the road to socialism/communism" -- then that is because the American people voted for "socialism/communism"? In fact, I agree with your contention. Does that therefore mean that the American people voted against "socialism/communism"? Please write in such a way that I can understand what you're trying to say. Yes. In fact, I'd say you are lying, or else are badly duped into believing blatant falsehoods and nonsense. According to the (anti-Iraq war, anti-American) ICasualties website, the current confirmed Iraqi security forces and civilian death toll is 45103 (though it does say that this does not include all civilian deaths). The much more blatantly anti-Iraq war, anti-American site Iraq Body Count places the documented civilian death toll at between 92458 and 100964. That's a civilian death toll of less than one-twentieth of your claim. I did, for one. Yes, and given your proven lying (or at least abysmal ignorance) in the previous instance, it's not hard at all to disagree with you. The US has no standing "offence" (or even "offense") force bases in any country, except perhaps its own, and certainly not in 150 countries around the world. I have never heard of any country asking or demanding that the US get rid of a standing offense force base. If such oppression exists, then obviously the US people voted for it by electing its authors and refusing to remove them from office when they could have. Those who put the administration in office, including myself. Bingo. Now you're finally catching on. Unlike your blatant hatred for me and my fellow citizens, I do not hate you. But I do despise your willful ignorance of things and your insistence on believing anything your local media want you to believe with respect to US foreign policy. (Note that, unlike you, I am also willing to be honest and tell you directly how I disagree with you and what I feel toward you, rather than pretend that any animosity is not really directed toward you at all.)

This is not true. The sealing power is the power to bind OR TO LOOSE both on earth and in heaven. If the First Presidency dissolves a sealing, then that sealing no longer exists. That is what it means to have the sealing power.

How about common practices and beliefs that are only mentioned zero times? Like the doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine that revelation has ceased, or the celebration of Christmas, or the idea that there should not be any apostles in our day, or any of countless other beliefs and practices that have no basis whatsoever in any scriptural teaching? Talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels...

Typical anti-religious propaganda in sheep's clothing, made by those who secretly hate religion and accepted by the sincere but gullible religious dupes who don't have the background to recognize antireligionism when it's spoon-fed to them. Consider these words of wisdom from Deepak Chopra: (While "War" - "Division" - "Pain" scroll across the screen) The most fervent believers are Fundamentalists, and look what they've done to the world. (Yes, of course. Heaven forbid anyone actually believe what his religion teaches. We all know that "fundamentalists" are those people whom the media so labels.) Here's another gem by Mr. Chopra: There's an expression that God gave humans the truth, and then the Devil said, "Let's organize it, we'll call it religion". So as soon as you take that experience and you create an institution around it, then coming with the institution are other things: power-mongering, croneyism, influence-peddling, ultimately corruption. In my opinion, no sincere and honest believer of any established religious tradition will give any credence to such nonsense.

My understanding is that PRK/LASIK work up to +/-10 diopters. 20/20 is not guaranteed, but any more it's pretty much standard. Almost everyone can at least pass a driver's licensing test without needing glasses.

You can get PRK or LASIK with -8 diopters.

GIDGirl, Here are a few unsolicited tips if you want to get LASIK. You don't have to believe me, of course, but please take a few hours to do some basic homework. In the end, I think you'll agree with me on these. Do not get LASIK or any other operative procedure until you're in your mid-20s or later. Your prescription is likely to be unstable before that age, and you certainly DO NOT want to get an eye operation, only to find out five years later that you need another because your prescription has changed.When you do get the procedure, DO NOT GET LASIK AT ALL!! Rather, get PRK, a related, slightly more uncomfortable, but far safer and less damaging procedure.LASIK requires that your cornea (surface of the eye) be sliced open, and the corneal modification is made underneath this "flap". What the ophthalmologist won't tell you -- indeed, what some ophthalmologists seem not to know at all -- is that the corneal flap never heals, not if you live to be 100. PRK does not do the flap; rather, it does the corneal modification right on the surface of your cornea. This is slightly more uncomfortable for the first few days after the procedure, but NO FLAP IS PRODUCED. The cornea is stronger and you don't have to worry about "flap dislodgement" or infection under the flap edge. You don't have to take my word for it. Rather, please research what I've written. If people simply refused to get LASIK and demanded PRK, we would all be much better off for it. EDIT: This supposedly "unbiased" comparison chart highlights these differences.

I can just see their conversation: Hearing Guy: asl? Deaf Gal: yeah, howd u know? r u deaf? HG: what do u mean? i asked asl, r u blind? DG: um, yeah, i answered, y so rude? HG:no time for games, im outta here <sign out> DG: ??????? TLA: communications facilitator or communications inhibitor?

And welcome home!

When I read the thread title, I started signing at the screen.

Troll.

If you truly considered it an inappropriate word, you would not have used it. I take your word at face value: You hate the US government. The US government is elected by and a representative of the US people. If you hate the US government, as you state, then you hate the US citizenry. We are a government of the people.

In another thread, someone wrote: "When disfellowshipped it goes on a persons church record." I have heard this kind of thing all my life, but as I have never held a ward-level or higher priesthood leadership position, I have no direct experience with it. What exactly is a "Church record"? Is this to say that somewhere in Salt Lake, there is a file cabinet with forms that say, "Brother So-and-so was disfellowshipped at 24 for reaching down his fiancee's shirt"? What is this used for? Is it consulted if someone is called to a leadership position or something? What else goes into your Church record? Is it like the "permanent file" that our grade school teachers always threatened us with if we didn't shape up? If you were an ineffective missionary, does your mission president write a note for your Church record about your lack of exhibiting leadership or getting things done? I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with or disapprove of such a thing. I'm just curious what it is.

You're right, Pam, but I'm not trying to make it any more. Such things are apparent only to those with eyes to see and ears to hear. When any person starts rewriting scripture to suit his own tastes and prejudices -- something that most of us have done to a greater or lesser degree at some time, I expect -- that person loses the ability to understand the truths of God and to see what's there to be seen. I might win the wordgame of logical argumentation, but it would be a hollow, meaningless win, and I have no desire to engage in such a contest.

I expect you are right on all these points. Makes sense. I have experienced similar things. Uh...you lost me, emotionally speaking. If you are making a quarter of a million dollars per year (!!!) and yet you're still worrying about "losing" five thousand dollars for taking a week's vacation, I think your viewpoint is sufficiently different from my own that we might not have much of a common basis. Many of us have never voluntarily taken a week's vacation in our lives, or have only done so only once or twice in twenty years. If I were making money at the rate of five grand a week, I would be set for life within five years and in any case would not think twice about taking a week off to vacation with my family. Feeling like you're "entitled" to full health care through your job is not a good or admirable attitude, I completely agree, but it's a whole lot different than feeling like you're "entitled" to take a week-long vacation without "losing" pay that you wouldn't be working for, anyway. They may perhaps be two ends of the same stick, but that's a pretty long stick. Do you see the disconnect of making this statement when your expectation is to take a weeklong vacation, and others' expectation may be to make the rent in their rent-controlled apartment? I don't disagree with anything you say, except maybe for this: I think it's most definitely the Democrats' fault, and for that matter the Republicans' fault, too. In any case, I think you speak the truth. More than that, you speak wisdom. But I find a lot of listener interference hearing such platitudes coming from someone making such a vast sum of money and then lecturing others, many of whom might be living near (or at, or even below) the poverty line, and might not make as much money in a year as you make in a month. It sounds like when a first-world missionary wrinkles his nose at his third-world charges and lectures them on the virtues of good hygiene, or when a privileged capitalist explains to impoverished communists how a healthy work ethic can really help you get ahead in the world.

I look like Dravin, except I'm not 6'4" or 208 lbs, I don't have blue eyes, red hair, freckles, or a goatee, and I'm not "blading" (which sounds rather cruel, whatever it is). Other than that, we could be brothers. (Except that I'm black. And female. And a dicephalic Siamese twin.)

Similarly, I can use an example to show that this life can easily be looked at like a ham sandwich. But that doesn't mean that it's profitable to use a ham sandwich as a model for the meaning or direction of life. You are incorrect. This life began at mortal birth, or perhaps some time before that, and will end at mortal death. If your desire is to know the truth that God has revealed, then misinterpreting "This life is the time to prepare to meet God" as meaning "You have all eternity to prepare to meet God" is not a useful way to find that revealed truth. At this point, you are inventing your own doctrine. You are free to do so, of course, but please don't mistake your philosophical meanderings for revealed LDS doctrine. If pigs had wings, would we pick buckshot out of our bacon? Answer: Pigs don't have wings. It's also irrelevant. Progression, per se, is not the ultimate purpose of this life. Preparation to meet God is. Progression is useful only insofar as it prepares us to meet God. So do you likewise brush off any other doctrine that doesn't agree with your personal philosophy by saying, "Well, we probably just don't know the higher truth yet"? Again, this is not a reliable way to learn revealed truth. Again, you are mistaken. This life has a beginning (birth, or perhaps before) and an end (death). So are you more inspired than the prophets who have taught that our existence here is indeed to prepare ourselves to meet God? Why ought I, or anyone else (including you -- you're just as valuable a soul as we are), believe your philosophical ideas when we have revealed truth telling us the way to God? No. We are striving to return to our Father. Please indicate to me any scripture or prophetic utterance that teaches that the elements of the plan of salvation are the fastest, as opposed to the only, path to exaltation. This is false doctrine. You would be wise to stay well away from it. This is your own private doctrine. Sure, it makes perfect sense -- as long as you think God is I Dream of Jeannie, folding his arms and blinking and making things appear out of nothing. But if you believe in eternal existence and a God of law as the prophets have revealed him, then your whole idea of "second chances" is shown to be irrelevant and beside the point. Do you believe that God gives people what they truly want? What if people show that they truly want something less than all he has to give? No. That is your personal idea, and it is wrong. I think your renaming of the Father's plan into one you like better is a dangerous indication of where you are headed with this thread of conversation.

29. The best I could do with "insatiable" was "inabsentia".

So the fact that there are necessary ordinances implies to you an open-ended time frame? I do not understand your reasoning. Because this life is the time to prepare to meet God. The scriptures and prophetic teachings seem not to agree with you. The Lord is to say, I assume. As we have been taught, this life is the time to prepare to meet God. The length of eternity is not at issue. No, it isn't. Your life had a beginning, and it will have an end. You will die, no matter what you may wish. But you are an eternal being. How do you "pull the plug" on an eternal being? What does that even mean? Your mental model is faulty, as I have already tried to explain. You seem to think that God is I Dream of Jeannie, who folds his arms and blinks his eyes and makes things pop into and out of existence, toying with his creations as if they were playthings. This is false. God has made it perfectly clear that this life is the time to prepare to meet him. Why? Because that's reality. You may think that you have a better idea, that if only God would give us a few million years then surely we would be ready for exaltation at that time and everything would be A-OK and peachy keen. But you are not the author of the plan of salvation. The Father is. And the Father has made it clear: This life is the time to prepare to meet God.

True enough, but that's not what we were responding to. Explaining the statement that the Lamanites were "victim's [sic] of white prejudice", Moksha claimed that: But this is foolishness. Moksha knows very well that the Lamanites were not "considered less than human" by the Nephites, that for most of Nephite history Lamanites were not "subject to rapes and murders by Bubbas with hoods" (a rather startling and almost humorous anachronism), and that the Lamanites who desired to unite with the Saints most certainly were not "denied full participation in what we consider to be the true Church." Not sure what Moksha intended by this, but he is too intelligent to believe such asininity. So his point in making openly false, racially charged claims about the Book of Mormon history is...?

My advice, especially in a case like this (where I don't know what is going on and don't have a grasp of the social aspects of the situation), is truly worth exactly what you pay for it. With that caveat, I would think that if you're having some sort of problem with a voluntary prayer group that is not amenable to a satisfactory solution, you're better off finding another prayer group. Unlike joining the LDS Church, joining a prayer group is not a covenant you've made with God, or even (it sounds like) a deep friendship. It's a union of convenience, a nice way to gain perspective and insights. If the group isn't giving you perspective or insights, then from your end, at least, it's not doing any good. Now, if you think your presence gives benefit to others in the group, then that's a matter worth considering. But other than that, I can't think of a good reason to stay in a group that isn't providing you any benefit. As I said, it's advice worth what you paid.

What is a prayer group? You mean, a group of people you get together with and pray with? Sort of like a placeholder for a family, like an FHE group or some such thing?

This is not LDS doctrine. It is nowhere taught in scripture or, as far as I know, in the non-canonical teachings of Joseph Smith.